ORDER : Heard Mr. O.P. Tiwari, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Kumar Basant Narayan, J.C. to Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the private-respondents. 3. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging order dated 24.06.2005 passed in Land Ceiling Case No.8/2004 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Garhwa as contained in Annexure-4 and also for quashing the order dated 06.05.2006 passed by Additional Collector, Garhwa in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 08/2005-06 as contained in Annexure-5. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 21.02.2007 passed in Revision Case No. 58/2006 passed by the Board of Revenue, Jharkhand as contained in Annexure-6 whereby the claim of pre-emption made by the private respondent nos.5, 6 & 7 under Section 16 (3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Acquisition of Surplus Land & Fixation of Ceiling Area) Act, 1961 has been affirmed. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the purchasers of the property vide registered sale deed no. 3344 dated 04.06.2004 from one Ram Lakhan Singh having area 4 acres and 44 and 1/2 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No.1, Plot Nos. 120, 118, 103 and 99 and Khata No.30, Plot No.100 located at Village – Ratangara, P.S. Manjhiao, District – Garhwa. The Respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 herein had filed an application for pre-emption under Section 16 (3) of the aforesaid Act seeking re-conveyance of the property on the ground that they were co-sharers of the vended land and also the adjoining raiyat. The application for pre-emption was allowed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Garhwa. It was upheld before the appellate court and was also upheld by the Member Board of Revenue. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, inter-alia, the property involved in this case was jointly purchased by their vendors along with his six brothers through registered sale deed executed in the year 1973. Total area purchased by the seven brothers in the year 1973 was 26.67 acres. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, inter-alia, the property involved in this case was jointly purchased by their vendors along with his six brothers through registered sale deed executed in the year 1973. Total area purchased by the seven brothers in the year 1973 was 26.67 acres. It was argued by the petitioners that the share of each of the brothers were defined in the sale deed of 1973 although it was not demarcated by metes and bounds but over a period of time there was mutual partition amongst the brothers and they came into independent possession of the various plots and areas of land depending upon their share to the extent defined in the original sale deed. It was argued that the vendor of the petitioner was one of the 7 brothers who came into independent possession of the property involved in this case and the property being part of his share has been transferred to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 being the sons of one of the seven brothers cannot claim to be the co-sharer of the property. 6. So far as the claim of the Respondent no 5, 6 and 7 being the adjoining raiyat of the vended property is concerned, counsel for the petitioners submits that a petition was filed before Member Board of Revenue for conducting a local inspection to ascertain the fact as to whether the Respondent no 5, 6 and 7 are the adjoining raiyat of the vended property or not, but that petition was ignored and the impugned order has been passed. 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents submits that there has never been a formal partition amongst seven brothers and they had admittedly purchased the entire chunk of land jointly and accordingly respondent nos. 5 to 7 are the co-sharers of the property being descendants of the original purchasers (seven brothers). In order to substantiate this, the counsel further submits that till the year 2004 the rent receipts were also issued in the joint name of the original purchasers and accordingly the claim of partition as being claimed by the petitioner has no basis. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the authority in the impugned order. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the authority in the impugned order. He submits that as the property was jointly purchased Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are the co-sharers of the property. He further submits that the impugned orders have been rightly passed considering the facts and circumstances of this case and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and accordingly the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 8. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner has lost before all the three authorities and as there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order therefore the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He also submits that there is no requirement of any local inspection particularly in view of the fact that if the private respondents herein are the co-sharers of the property the matter ends. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on records, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that admittedly the entire chunk of property was purchased as back as in the year 1973 by a registered sale deed in the joint name of the seven brothers and the vendor of the petitioners is only one of the seven brothers. There is nothing material on record to suggest that there was partition by metes and bounds amongst the seven brothers, rather from the perusal of the impugned order it appears that even the rent of the property was being paid in the joint name of all the original purchasers of the property even in the year 2004 as the property was jointly purchased by the 7 brothers. Therefore the Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 who are the descendants of one of the brothers are certainly the co-sharers of the property and the story of partition by metes and bounds amongst the seven brothers has been rightly disbelieved by the impugned orders. Accordingly, the application for pre-emption was rightly filed by the private respondents herein and it was rightly allowed by the authorities below. 10. As this court finds that the Respondent Nos. Accordingly, the application for pre-emption was rightly filed by the private respondents herein and it was rightly allowed by the authorities below. 10. As this court finds that the Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 are the co-sharers of the property there is no requirement for any local inspection to verify as to whether they were the adjoining raiyat of the property or not. This is so in view of the fact that a person merely by claiming to be co-sharer of the property has a right to file an application for preemption under section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is dismissed.